ArticleResearch square2024
Assessing the Effectiveness of Automatic Speech Recognition Technology in Emergency Medicine Settings: A Comparative Study of Four AI-powered Engines.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Cutting-edge automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology holds significant promise in transcribing and recognizing medical information during patient encounters, thereby enabling automatic and real-time clinical documentation, which could significantly alleviate care clinicians' burdens. Nevertheless, the performance of current-generation ASR technology in analyzing conversations in noisy and dynamic medical settings, such as prehospital or Emergency Medical Services (EMS), lacks sufficient validation. This study explores the current technological limitations and future potential of deploying ASR technology for clinical documentation in fast-paced and noisy medical settings such as EMS. Methods In this study, we evaluated four ASR engines, including Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation, OpenAI Speech-to-Text, Amazon Transcribe Medical, and Azure Speech-to-Text engine. The empirical data used for evaluation were 40 EMS simulation recordings. The transcribed texts were analyzed for accuracy against 23 Electronic Health Records (EHR) categories of EMS. The common types of errors in transcription were also analyzed. Results Among all four ASR engines, Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation performed the best. Among all EHR categories, better performance was observed in categories "mental state" (F1 = 1.0), "allergies" (F1 = 0.917), "past medical history" (F1 = 0.804), "electrolytes" (F1 = 1.0), and "blood glucose level" (F1 = 0.813). However, all four ASR engines demonstrated low performance in transcribing certain critical categories, such as "treatment" (F1 = 0.650) and "medication" (F1 = 0.577). Conclusion Current ASR solutions fall short in fully automating the clinical documentation in EMS setting. Our findings highlight the need for further improvement and development of automated clinical documentation technology to improve recognition accuracy in time-critical and dynamic medical settings.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.